You're given an opportunity...

This is a discussion on You're given an opportunity... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by firefighter4884
Any responses? Please be level headed, and be willing to back up your arguments. I understand what shall not be infringed ...

Any responses? Please be level headed, and be willing to back up your arguments. I understand what shall not be infringed means (and I agree with you), but I would prefer to hear compromise ideas...

--Jim

To me, compromising with the anti-gunners is pretty much how we got in such a mess in the first place. Anti's mostly argue from a position of "moral superiority" (how THEY got there I'll never know!) so they argue that "gunners have 5 apples, we deserve them all".

My original intent was to provoke exactly this kind of debate; to see what people were willing to give up.

While in a perfect world, I'd love to have a no compromise approach to the RKBA, it's not really feasible any longer. It's unfortunate, but the reality of the situation is that we have gun laws, and some of them suck. I was trying to see what different individuals are willing to give up, in exchange for whichever freedoms they value the most.

For example, I quite honestly would be willing (as I said) to have .50 BMG rifles added to the NFA weapons list, in exchange for nationwide reciprocity on concealed carry. I don't think I'd ever be presented with that, but if I was, I'd be willing to make that trade. Does it violate the spirit of "shall not be infringed"? You bet it does - but it would get me something that I believe is valuable (nationwide reciprocity) in exchange for something that I only care about in an academic sense.

If you commit a crime with a gun...20 addl. years plus full restitution to your victim. As a felon you can never own a gun again.
If you're a LEO who commits a crime with a gun, 40 years addl.

That's pretty much it. Doesn't matter, you'll still have the problems of the states. The states have the right to pass laws to further restrict weapons. You can have the Supreme Court void any and all federal gun laws, but those of you who are denied your god given right to self defense are going to wake up in the same situation you're in now.

If the this what if covers the state restrictions, my 1st two laws apply.
If you give the anti's ANYTHING they'll use it as a wedge to push further in.

The anti-gunners will never be satisfied w/ just one more comprise either, they will always want more until we are all disarmed!!! That is what they are doing now, with every crime with a gun they want more and more anti-gun laws passed until we as Americans have no more guns!!!
Put them in their own State and when a crime happens they will always blame gun owners from another state. They would never see what is so plain to see that humans can do such wonderful things, but also do horrible things to each other.
They always blame the object not the person! "If that person didn't have a gun it wouldn't happen" Take the gun out of the picture and he will do no wrong to anybody.

For example, I quite honestly would be willing (as I said) to have .50 BMG rifles added to the NFA weapons list, in exchange for nationwide reciprocity on concealed carry. I don't think I'd ever be presented with that, but if I was, I'd be willing to make that trade. Does it violate the spirit of "shall not be infringed"? You bet it does - but it would get me something that I believe is valuable (nationwide reciprocity) in exchange for something that I only care about in an academic sense.

Thank you for that display of mentality, the same mentality that has gotten us here in the first place.

You are willing to give up something that you don't have...for something that you might get.

Brilliant.

You are willing to give up my right to own a .50 because you don't own one. That is exactly how the ill fated Brady Bill came to be. Hunters didn't "need" so called military style rifles so they more or less gave them away to the anti's. After all...it didn't affect them right?

So today it is the .50.
Later down the road it will be the .49
and then the 48.
and eventually the .47.
and the antis will never be satisfied until there is nothing left to give.

All because you took the first step and"gave" them something you didn't have.

Maryland. I escaped from there in 1994. Moved home to Florida. Guns are not the only area that Md has dumb laws. The normal over the road trailer today has grown from the 48' to the 53'. Md refuses to allow Hazardous material in 53' trailers today. Guess that extra 5 feet makes a huge difference somehow??? Go figger. As far as compromising is concerned, None is the ideal, but I guess I would agree that not many of us need NBC weapons lying around the house. Having no restrictions on crossing state lines would be a nice trade-off for this concession. Other than that, "of the people, Shall not be infringed" comes to mind.

I would not compromise at all. I would also not fall back on the Second Amendment to defend my rights.

I would present evidence that gun control laws don't work at all. And, in fact, they make the problem of violent crime worse. One good thing gun control has provided is numerous examples of how miserably it fails. The statistics are easily available and definitively demonstrate that most important point.

I don't think the anti's are necessarily stupid, but they are mostly illogical in their thinking. The only way to rid ourselves of the gun grabbers is to educate them, first in logic, then in the futility and real harm gun control creates.

I would support an additional mandatory 20 year prison sentence (with no time off for good behavior) for any criminal/thug that commits an armed robbery, rape, assault, home invasion etc., type felony with a firearm.

Why just firearms? Why not all violent type crimes? Creating the firearms crime stat to begin with was a joke. Just designed to demonize a single group of tools with a political purpose.

Thank you for that display of mentality, the same mentality that has gotten us here in the first place.

You are willing to give up something that you don't have...for something that you might get.

Brilliant.

You are willing to give up my right to own a .50 because you don't own one. That is exactly how the ill fated Brady Bill came to be. Hunters didn't "need" so called military style rifles so they more or less gave them away to the anti's. After all...it didn't affect them right?

So today it is the .50.
Later down the road it will be the .49
and then the 48.
and eventually the .47.
and the antis will never be satisfied until there is nothing left to give.

All because you took the first step and"gave" them something you didn't have.

With friends like that...who needs enemy's ?

And thank you for completely missing the point. The point of the exercise was to discuss what compromises you would be willing to make, if you were given the chance to re-write all of the nation's firearms laws. In that hypothetically situation, I would sacrifice .50 BMG rifles on the altar of compromise, to gain nationwide concealed carry.

However, what you're failing to understand is that my hypothetically willingness to sacrifice .50 BMGs doesn't add up in the real world, because I'm not gaining anything from losing them. So I've fought ever proposed .50 ban because, as I said, there isn't anything to gain.

I admire idealogical purity, I really do. I wish I lived in a world where the 2nd Amendment was read as it was written, and I didn't have to deal with NICS to buy a gun, or get a permit to carry my firearm concealed.